Needing an advice...

[Chip753]

Hello.
This is my first post in the 7CS section and I have to thank you for what you are doing for people that want to improve the game.

My problem with 7CS is basically… 7CS!

Seriously, that is my story with 7CS. One month ago I decided that I really wanted to learn to play that game, being focused just on that, so I ordered some books: “Winning 7-Card Stud” and “7-Card Stud for Advanced players”. I read just the first book cause I read in some topics that Sklansky’s book is not good for the kind of game in which I should play… and that’s another problem.

I am starting to play 7CS in the lowest possible game on PS (0.04/0.08, ante 0.01).

During the first game everything was going good. I had a lot of time for analyzing the game of the others cause I was folding almost everything, following the advice of the Ashley’s book (Iper thight-aggressive style), and I was looking some amazing bad beat: people that started with nothing and that cought two perfect cards; five calling stations with amazing third street. Basically a loose-passive game with some exceptions. Everything seemed great cause I was thinking that it should be pretty easy to beat the game playing in the right way.

And then…
That’s the problem.

Five or four bad beat (one time a guy, starting with nothing, cought five cards in sequence and made a flush) and a lot of fancy players all togheter looking for good cards in IV, V and VI streets. Now, I really don’t care about bad beats: it is part of the game. If I did not want to accept them, it was better to play chess but what I would like to know is if this level is good to learn the game and I really have to pass this exam to try a shot in other levels, building a bankroll with 7CS (that is what I want to do).
I tried a shot in the upper level (0.10/0.20, ante 0.02) and I noticed that players are really fancy but very aggressive so there are few guys walking in the last streets.
What kind of advice can you give me?

Thank you for everything.

I beg your pardon if the post is too long.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
I tried a shot in the upper level (0.10/0.20, ante 0.02)

[/ QUOTE ]
I think I found the problem.

[Chip753]

You mean I should'nt try the shot?

But I play just for a while losing 1. Meanwhile I looked the way in which the others play and I never had the thought to change level without beating the lower level in which I always play.

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I tried a shot in the upper level (0.10/0.20, ante 0.02)

[/ QUOTE ]
I think I found the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean I should'nt try the shot?


[/ QUOTE ]
Chip, I am no expert and a really bad 7CS player, but as a Razz player I can tell you that it was impossible for me to beat .25/.50 and I made money playing 1/2. I can also tell you there is variance in poker and no matter how good you are you will sometimes lose more, get sucked out on more, than you could ever dream was possible. You will also go on incredible winning streaks during which you will have to keep telling yourself you are NOT the greatest player in the world.

It's all just part of it. Take your time, play where you have the bankroll, and be patient.

[Chip753]

Thank you for your advice. I perfectly inderstand what do you mean when you write about winning streaks and feeling like gods of poker ([img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]): I know it is part of the game... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

About your technical advice: so you think it is quite tough to try to beat low stakes cause people play without any kind of idea behind?

[electrical]

At lowest levels, much of the time you will be playing against multiple hands of essentially random cards. If you stick to playing "good" starting cards, you will have a slight edge over a multiple-player "random" distribution, and that edge will take some time to show a profit.

If you take (AA)K hot and cold against four random hands, you have approximately 36 percent equity. That means you will lose the hand 64 percent of the time! Over a long series of trials however, when you do win, you will get more money back than you have lost. In the process you will see some amazing crap pull down huge pots.

It might take an awful long time at micro levels for this to become apparent, but the plain truth in poker is that the odds are real, and if you have the best of it, you will make money.

Playing at higher stakes doesn't change the mathematics, and until you get to significant stakes, the style of play doesn't really approach the style discussed in the serious literature. At the penny levels, you may be the only player at the table who even considers his starting cards.

If you have a strong grasp of the player-independent fundamentals (hand strength on third street, position on third street, value of draws, liveness of cards, pot odds) you might consider moving up to the small dollar-increment levels, where there will be other people who take the game seriously and you may feel less frustration.

No, actually, there's frustration at every level. Get used to it, then move up.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
At lowest levels, much of the time you will be playing against multiple hands of essentially random cards. If you stick to playing "good" starting cards, you will have a slight edge over a multiple-player "random" distribution, and that edge will take some time to show a profit.

If you take (AA)K hot and cold against four random hands, you have approximately 36 percent equity. That means you will lose the hand 64 percent of the time! Over a long series of trials however, when you do win, you will get more money back than you have lost. In the process you will see some amazing crap pull down huge pots.

It might take an awful long time at micro levels for this to become apparent, but the plain truth in poker is that the odds are real, and if you have the best of it, you will make money.

Playing at higher stakes doesn't change the mathematics, and until you get to significant stakes, the style of play doesn't really approach the style discussed in the serious literature. At the penny levels, you may be the only player at the table who even considers his starting cards.

If you have a strong grasp of the player-independent fundamentals (hand strength on third street, position on third street, value of draws, liveness of cards, pot odds) you might consider moving up to the small dollar-increment levels, where there will be other people who take the game seriously and you may feel less frustration.

No, actually, there's frustration at every level. Get used to it, then move up.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think I found the solution.

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
About your technical advice: so you think it is quite tough to try to beat low stakes cause people play without any kind of idea behind?

[/ QUOTE ]
Electrical said it all just in his first sentence. I'd only add that they hardly consider their own starting cards, <u>and</u> almost NEVER notice anyone else's. You can't get these people to fold with a superior-looking board. They will check-call or bet to the river and then turn over all the cards with a "let's see who won!" philosophy.

As far as I'm concerned, if you can't bluff, it's not even poker.

[Chip753]

Thank you for the advice... I will try to build a bankroll meanwhile I will study some 7CS books and players of good tables to learn something.